


"But John shot someone too..."

by the_etymologist



Category: Sherlock (TV)
Genre: Gen, Meta, Sherlock Series 3 Spoilers
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2014-02-10
Updated: 2014-02-10
Packaged: 2018-01-11 20:34:28
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 2,395
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/1177615
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/the_etymologist/pseuds/the_etymologist
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>In interviews and fan-discussions about Mary and her role in “His Last Vow” the point is sometimes raised that all three main characters, who are supposed like, have shot someone on the show and that it is therefore a unfair to judge too harshly Mary for what she’s done. If it’s fair for Sherlock and John, it’s fair for Mary as well, isn’t it? Aren’t we veering dangerously close to a double standard where only men are allowed to be violent and gun-toting?</p>
            </blockquote>





	"But John shot someone too..."

In interviews and fan-discussions about Mary and her role in “His Last Vow” the point is sometimes raised that all three main characters, who are supposed like, have shot someone on the show and that it is therefore a unfair to judge too harshly Mary for what she’s done. If it’s fair for Sherlock and John, it’s fair for Mary as well, isn’t it? Aren’t we veering dangerously close to a double standard where only men are allowed to be violent and gun-toting?

The generalisation, if you zoom back wide enough, seems to be that all three killed to save someone they loved: John killed for Sherlock; Mary almost-killed for John; Sherlock killed for Mary (and thus John). The details may differ, but overall, this is what the heroes on our show do. They’ll tread morally grey areas if they have to.

Point is, the details matter.

Everyone knows those moral thought experiments: “There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. There is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull a lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person” (shortened and taken straight from Wikipedia).

There are dozens of variations of this one alone, and hundreds more to keep you entertained at a party. The thing is, psychologists have conducted large-scale studies using dilemmas like this to see how changing the parameters changes the way people choose: how active a part do they have to play in the killing, how “valuable” do they perceive the victims to be etc. The bottom line is: Those parameters can make a huge difference. Taking a human life can be seen as anything from a heinous crime to a moral imperative.

Most justice systems recognize this to a degree (although there might still be gap between what we perceive as morally justified and what is sanctioned by law, for example in some cases of vigilante justice): The killing of a person can entail anything from a lifetime sentence for first degree murder to acquittal in case of self-defence.

So if we look at the shootings committed by the three main characters on the show, how would we judge them, morally? (Also, how would we rule in a court of law? I’m not in any way qualified to say anything on the second question – I’ll just make an educated guess. Lawyers are welcome to butt in and set me straight.) If we didn’t know them as characters, but saw their actions committed by faceless figures?

(I don’t want to dictate anyone how to think about these issues - they’re tricky and it’s to be expected that people have different takes, which I’d love to hear about. I’m just trying to lay out some of the things that should be kept in mind when judging these characters and then give my own assessment on them.)

 

**Let’s start with John.**

Intention: John kills a man he has all reason to believe is a serial killer by shooting him in the chest with a handgun in dim light through two windowpanes and over a considerable distance. We can therefore assume that – even if John is a crack shot – he couldn`t be exactly sure where the bullet would land, whether he would incapacitate or kill the cabbie (Remember, Mary, also a crack shot tries to make a non-kill shot – we are told – over a distance of a few feet and she basically fails). But he accepts that a man’s death is a possible consequence and doesn’t seem to be sad about it.

Motivation: Here it is important to keep in mind that John doesn’t know what we know – that Sherlock is taking the pill on his own free will. All John knows is that there is a serial killer on the loose who kills by somehow making their victims take poison. How he does this is unclear – John proposed earlier that he might be using bad memories/experiences of his victims, maybe talking them into committing suicide somehow (like Hannibal Lecter does with his rude cell neighbour). What John honestly believes he sees is murder in progress.

Premeditation: He did bring a gun, so he was prepared to shoot should the need arise. But he did not set out to hunt someone down and kill them. It certainly wasn’t a planned murder. In the situation, he had only a few seconds to decide what to do.

Could he have acted differently? Well, he does try to shout and get Sherlock’s attention. He could have shot something else, I guess – Sherlock, although that would have been dangerous, or the furniture. He wouldn’t have known the outcome of that. If he thought the cabbie was actively taking part in killing Sherlock, taking him out was the way to go and he didn’t have another way of incapacitating/restraining him in time.

Aggravating/mitigating circumstances: He acted solely in the defence of another person. He didn’t gain any personal advantage from what he did.

What I would hold against him is that he tries to escape the consequences of his actions. He doesn’t surrender himself to the police and go through the investigation. But that is the aftermath of the shooting, not the act itself.

Verdict: As Sherlock himself said, he probably wouldn’t do time for that. He would get charged for carrying an illegal firearm, but I think he could plausibly argue self-defense (which also counts for defending someone else).   


 

**Mary (She’s reeeeally difficult, so this is a bit long. And rambly. And probably unsatisfying.)**

Intention: This is a tricky one. If we believe Sherlock’s spin, she didn’t shoot to kill. She wanted to incapacitate him so he couldn’t keep her from escaping or talk to John, but at the same time maximise his chances of survival. From the metas I have read by people more knowledgeable on the subject, shooting someone in that area of the chest that always carries a high risk of death, because it’s so easy to hit a major organ or blood vessel – so I think it’s fair to say that while she didn’t _want_ him to die, she was willing to take a high chance of that outcome.

Motivation: Read [Wellingtongoose’s meta](http://wellingtongoose.livejournal.com/28291.html) on this. Mary has a lot of different parameters to keep in mind. She can’t carry out her initial plan (whatever that might have been, probably shooting Magnusson or threatening him), so she needs to find a way to a) get out of the building; b) intimidate Magnusson and not show any weakness; c) make sure Sherlock doesn’t tell John. By wounding Sherlock she achieves all three. She wins time, and if Sherlock dies, which has a high probability, she might feel sad about it, but she also has to worry about one less person who knows.

Premeditation: She didn’t bring a gun with the intention to shoot Sherlock. (I don’t know what her plans for Magnusson were, but that’s not the question.) However, she doesn’t shoot in the heat of the moment, she questions Sherlock first about John’s whereabouts, then warns him off, and then she shoots. It’s pretty clear that she weighed her options, made up her mind and then acted on that decision.

Did she have other options? A ton. Shooting Sherlock in a different place, pistol-whipping him, trusting on the fact that he likes her and will hear her out before talking to John (he _does_ offer her his help), negotiating with him (á la “if you tell John, it will break him – you don’t want that, do you?”), trying to make him an ally in her fight against with Magnusson.

Now, all of these other options would have had drawbacks for her. I’m not saying they’re all equally good at achieving the prerogatives listed above. From the perspective of a ruthless character trying to get the best outcome for themselves in any situation, her solution probably _is_ the best. But from a moral standpoint, pretty much any solution that doesn’t endanger lives is preferable.

Aggravating/mitigating circumstances. The big question would be: did she act solely out of self interest? It’s hard to answer. Mary says: “John can’t ever know that I lied to him. It would break him and I would lose him forever.” She herself ties John’s best interest and her self-interest up. She doesn’t want him broken (altruism), but she also doesn’t want to lose him (self-interest). She _is_ prepared to sacrifice his best friend, which would cause John a lot of pain. Even if everything had gone according to her plan – Sherlock survives and never tells John, Magnusson is dealt with – she would have kept lying to him about her past for the rest of their lives…

Is she even able to differentiate between her own and John’s best interest? She decides that what is best for her is also best for John – a difficult call to make because it is so easy to fool oneself… It’s a tough one to call. I’d say that she genuinely believes that it’s better for him to never know, and there is at least an element of concern for him in her actions. However, if that had been all she was worrying about, if her own welfare had been the last thing on her mind, she would have chosen an option that put less risk on Sherlock and more on herself (see above).

Verdict: Dear Lord… Well, she would have been convicted of something. Aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, at least, if she can argue convincingly that she tried to save his life. Morally… well, judging from the posts on tumblr, people’s reactions are all over the place. I think we could agree that – if we compare her directly to John – her actions were a) not in the defence of anyone’s life, b) more premeditated (John had literally to seconds to decide, she first questioned Sherlock about John’s presence and warned him off), and more about her own good than anyone else’s (again, John’s actions only directly benefitted Sherlock, Mary’s actions benefitted herself and secondarily also (maybe) John). Let’s put it this way, if we framed Mary’s action as a moral dilemma (“You’re happily married but you have a dark past that you kept secret from your husband. You think he will leave you if he knows…”), few of us would think “I shoot the best friend in the chest and hope that if he survives I can convince him not to tell my husband” is a morally acceptable answer.

 

 **Sherlock**.

Intention: He shot to kill. Directly in the head, close distance. No discussion there.

Motivation: 1. He makes sure Mary isn’t killed by shadowy figures from her past; 2. Thereby he ensures his best friend’s happiness. 3. He protects Mycroft (i.e. the British Nation) from continued blackmail; 4. He gets rid of a cruel villain.

Premeditation: He asked John to bring a gun, but didn’t know shooting Magnusson was an option before he saw Appledore, so he didn’t bring a gun specifically for the purpose of murder. He made up his mind after he got to know Magnusson’s secret and obviously thought it through (waiting until they were outside, asking again whether all the information is only in M’s head etc.). He knew exactly what he was doing.

Did he have other options? YES. He just got to know Magnusson’s big secret. Magnusson had to create the Appledore myth because he knew that people had to at least believe he had evidence. Magnusson must have made a ton of powerful enemies – if they got to know the truth, he would lose all leverage he had over them. People would start demanding evidence for his accusations, and he would come up empty handed. Sherlock, John and Mary (and Mycroft, if Sherlock put enough pressure on him) could have dismantled Magnusson’s empire and protected Mary from whoever is coming after her. Or he could have turned the tables and blackmailed Magnusson with his knowledge!

It would have been less of a guaranteed success, but he wouldn’t have had to resort to murder.

Aggravating/mitigating circumstances:

Sherlock did not act in his own self-interest. (Well, except if you argue that in sacrificing himself for John, he satisfies his own needs, but then we can just kick the concept of true altruism altogether, and I don’t want to get in that debate. Point is, he acts as selflessly as it gets). He saves a woman who almost killed him, saves her from the consequences of her past actions, because his best friend means that much to him.

He also just watched the painful scene of Magnusson humiliating John by flicking his face repeatedly, something I found really hard to watch, so a good lawyer could probably argue for manslaughter…

Also, he is prepared to accept the consequences. In that moment when he shoots in front of his brother and a dozen people, he is prepared to sacrifice his work, his freedom, possibly his life. To me, that is incredibly important in all kinds of moral dilemmas – if you are prepared to break laws for the greater good, are you prepared to accept the consequences as well?

Verdict: I think this is the one where the law and public opinion could diverge the most. It was, without question, at least manslaughter and he would go to prison.

Morally, the question of killing villains is always difficult, because we all wish someone would just come along and take them out, but on the other hand there are good reasons for not allowing that kind of vigilante justice. On the other hand again, seeing as Magnusson was blackmailing and influencing whole governments, not just individual people, we’re almost getting on the territory of tyrannicide here… so, I can understand both people feeling his actions were justifiable, and people for whom his behaviour crossed a line.

Personally, I’m in the latter camp. I don’t like it at all that the show went there (I tuned in for _Sherlock_ , not _Dexter_ ) and I’ll probably push the knowledge deep into a locked box in the cellar of my mind palace and ignore it as much as I can.


End file.
